(06-02-2014 01:07 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote: No, it is not the burden of proof of atheists to disprove the existence of a god. You are making the claim, and we are saying "You need to show proof of that claim." You can't turn around and say, "Well, you have to disprove my claim!" We aren't claiming a damn thing. We only go by evidence. Why does the word EVIDENCE get completely ignored over and over again? Where...is...the...EVIDENCE?

I can go around making any bullshit claim I want that you can't disprove. I could say I was visited by 3 gods last night that told me they were the creators of the universe, and you couldn't disprove me. My claim doesn't deserve ANY credibility unless I can prove it. It is not the job of others to disprove it.

We are NOT trying to get you to change your views. You came here to supposedly look for answers, and the only thing you have done is state that you are a creationist and ask atheists to prove you wrong. We don't give a care what you believe, and we're not here to convert you. YOU came HERE, so don't try to turn it around on us and act like we're trying to convert you.

I never claimed that it is the burden of atheists to prove the non-existence of God...unless you are one of those atheists who tries to convert non-atheists. If you are not, then great.

If you are an atheist who tries to convert others then you are making a claim. You are claiming, "Your beliefs are wrong", or "Your beliefs do not have any credibility". Either of those is a positive statement. Thus, if you are asserting it, and you have the burden of proof. Religious people aren't making a "claim" just because they believe. They are only making a "claim" if they try to tell you that you should believe it.

If a Jehovah's witness shows up at your door to convert you they have the burden of proof. But, my religious mother doesn't have the burden of proving anything to you just because of what she chooses to believe.

If you want to make up silly crap about me then go ahead, but if you read any of my posts then you know you are full of crap. I have never once stated anything on these forums without being prepared to back it up with reasons and evidence (and considering that my beliefs differ from most on these forums I have backed them up continuously). I certainly have never come on here asserting something with no support and asking atheists to prove me wrong.

I apologized in my last post and was trying to be nice. I'm a little surprised at your accusations and the harshness of your response.

If you take a look through the forum rules you'll find this, "This forum isn't just for atheists. It is for anyone - no matter what race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or anything else. Anyone is welcome to participate and express their opinions." As far as I can tell, I'm welcome on this forum, too, regardless of my beliefs.

It really has nothing to do with trying to 'convert' someone - it has to do with evidence and reason.

Those who believe in any gods lack evidence, they have faith of some sort.
There is no evidence for any gods, and the universe looks exactly as a material, natural universe would look.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(06-02-2014 10:11 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote: You still have your trolls like Taqqiya Mockingbird (who I have been basically ignoring) and now EvolutionKills (who I'm planning to start ignoring), but I don't hold their stupidity and lack of civility against the rest of you, just as I hope that no one on here holds the ignorance and closed-mindedness of some who believe in a greater power against me.

Yo are simply being a chickenshit and running away from rebuttals that destroy your bullshit assertions and blaming them on adult language like some prissy little bitch. In case you missed the forum rules the first time around this forum accepts adult language as a matter of course. If you can't handle it, fuck the hell off.

[quot]e
I have heard the point made about "what caused God" and have answered it multiple times.[/quote]

Nno, you haven't. Special pleading doesn't fucking cut it.

Quote: I certainly have never made the argument "we don't know, therefore God". In my arguments I have used the facts that are known, along with reasonable premises to get to the conclusion that a "first cause" must exist. I understand that my answer has generally not been accepted, but I understood that would likely be the case since I am on an atheist forum.

Indeed, we don't accept bullshit and shell games. Go figure.

Quote: If you went and presented your points on a theist forum you know they wouldn't be accepted, but that wouldn't make you wrong, and it wouldn't mean that you weren't listening to what they had to say. Intelligent people can reasonably disagree on things.

That isn't a matter of "intelligent people disagreeing" It's a matter of theists like you being disingenuous, self-deluding sons of bitches.

Quote:I'm not really trying to convince anyone on this forum that I'm right, I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen. I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of having the discussion and I pick up some interesting knowledge from hearing different perspectives than my own on these issues.

Bullshit. It goes in one ear and out the other. As evinved by your constant spamming of the kalaam.

Quote: If I hope to accomplish anything in arguing about the existence of a God (other than to potentially find some atheist argument I haven't heard before) my only hope would be to show that there is a rational basis for the belief (even if you don't agree I'm right) and that not all those who believe in the existence of a higher power are closed-minded nutbars.

You cannot show that there is a "rational basis for your belief" because your belief is not based in rationality, period. And yes, you are a closed-minded nutbar.

Quote:Your burden of proof example works both ways.

INCORRECT.

Quote: I understand your point...if I want to convince someone that a creator exists then I have the burden of proof. That having been said, the opposite is also true...if anyone on this page wants to convince me that a creator does not exist, or that it is foolish to believe that a creator exists, then they have the burden of proof.

I can prove that you are a fool to believe in your "creator". You don't believe in fucking Santa Claus, leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies, do you. And yet you believe in this fairy tale creature. And you are a fool for the same reason you or anyone else would be a fool for believing in fucking Santa Claus, leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies.

Quote:I'm a lawyer,

Good fucking Gawd, I pity anyone who puts their stake in your fucking hands.

Quote: so allow me a courtroom example (I saw someone use a contract law example on another page, so I'll use that one): Two people enter into a contract. A buyer agrees to pay a supplier $1000 for a shipment of widgets. If the deal doesn't close as planned, who has the burden of proving their damages? The answer is: the plaintiff (ie. whoever makes the claim that they have suffered damages). The plaintiff may be the supplier who claims that the buyer stiffed him on payment, or it could be the buyer who claims that the goods were never delivered. The same analysis holds when it comes to who has to prove the existence and legitimacy of the contract in the first place. The person who has the burden of proof is the person who is relying on the contract. If the buyer wants to rely on that contract they can't simply say, "the seller has failed to prove that we didn't have a contract." But, similarly if the seller wants to rely on that contract he can't simply say, "the buyer has failed to prove that we didn't have a contract."

To translate this to your proposed scenario, the man who claims that Loki was the killer does have the burden to prove his claim. However, if the police officer said, "I don't believe you, I'm charging you with the murder." The police officer (or the Crown attorney) would then have the burden of proof that the man is the actual murderer.

I have heard some atheists say that those who believe in a creator always have the burden of proof because they are making the claim. I disagree. I think that whoever is trying to change the beliefs of the other has the burden of proof, whether it be atheist, deist or theist.

That is disingenuous bullshit. We aren't trying to change your fucking beliefs. We are simply pointing out that you have not proven your claims that your fairy tale monster exists.

Quote:If everyone is content to let everyone else believe what they believe, then no one has any burden.

Yes, and its written into your fucking holey babble that your job is to spread your insanity. So YOU have the burden of proof.

Quote: But, if you (or I) want to convince someone else to change their views, then you (or I) then bears the burden of proof.

I don't care if you change your views. All I want for you is for you to fuck off and die.

Think about it in any other topic. Do you mock people's views on how to approach a problem at work? Do you mock people's views that their sports team is better than yours? Do you mock people's views on which movie deserved to win the Oscar? Do you mock people's views on fashion that differ from yours? Do you mock people's political views because you disagree?

You may be right in all of those situations, but if you are mocking all those beliefs just because you disagree with them you may, in fact, just be an asshole.
[/quote]

(06-02-2014 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote: It really has nothing to do with trying to 'convert' someone - it has to do with evidence and reason.

Those who believe in any gods lack evidence, they have faith of some sort.
There is no evidence for any gods, and the universe looks exactly as a material, natural universe would look.

Of course it has to do with trying to 'convert' someone. I was talking about burden of proof. Why would any religious person have the burden of proving anything to you unless they were asserting it to you as the truth? If they are content to just worship in private then they only owe themselves the standard of proof that they choose to apply to their own beliefs. If they choose to believe based on blind faith, then that's their choice. But, they don't owe you any explanation or have any burden of proof towards you unless they choose to try to impose their own beliefs on you.

As for your second point, I don't know if you realize how strong a statement you've made, so I figure I'd point it out for you...

How do you know that the universe looks exactly as a material, natural universe would look? Really? How would a universe of divine creation look any different? You have no benchmark for comparison. Unless you have seen at least one universe that was natural and at least one universe that was of divine creation you have ZERO way to be able to make that claim. On the assumption that this is the only universe you've ever seen, I would submit that you have too small a sample size and no control group in order to make your assertion.

You don't let Christians get away with those sorts of assumptions. It's a good thing you have at least one deist here to keep you on your toes

(06-02-2014 07:21 PM)Chas Wrote: It really has nothing to do with trying to 'convert' someone - it has to do with evidence and reason.

Those who believe in any gods lack evidence, they have faith of some sort.
There is no evidence for any gods, and the universe looks exactly as a material, natural universe would look.

Of course it has to do with trying to 'convert' someone. I was talking about burden of proof. Why would any religious person have the burden of proving anything to you unless they were asserting it to you as the truth? If they are content to just worship in private then they only owe themselves the standard of proof that they choose to apply to their own beliefs. If they choose to believe based on blind faith, then that's their choice. But, they don't owe you any explanation or have any burden of proof towards you unless they choose to try to impose their own beliefs on you.

As for your second point, I don't know if you realize how strong a statement you've made, so I figure I'd point it out for you...

How do you know that the universe looks exactly as a material, natural universe would look? Really? How would a universe of divine creation look any different? You have no benchmark for comparison. Unless you have seen at least one universe that was natural and at least one universe that was of divine creation you have ZERO way to be able to make that claim. On the assumption that this is the only universe you've ever seen, I would submit that you have too small a sample size and no control group in order to make your assertion.

You don't let Christians get away with those sorts of assumptions. It's a good thing you have at least one deist here to keep you on your toes

P.S. I love the picture Taqiyya, you should make it your avatar.

I know precisely how strong my statement is.

And I will back it up with the fact that every investigation into the nature of the universe has yielded a naturalistic result.
The answer has never been 'magic'. Not once, not ever.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Think about it in any other topic. Do you mock people's views on how to approach a problem at work? Do you mock people's views that their sports team is better than yours? Do you mock people's views on which movie deserved to win the Oscar? Do you mock people's views on fashion that differ from yours? Do you mock people's political views because you disagree?

You may be right in all of those situations, but if you are mocking all those beliefs just because you disagree with them you may, in fact, just be an asshole.

[/quote]

Did I get a bad grade on that mocking business? I think I missed it
LOL
(will go re-read thread)

(07-02-2014 12:13 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote: Of course it has to do with trying to 'convert' someone. I was talking about burden of proof. Why would any religious person have the burden of proving anything to you unless they were asserting it to you as the truth?

The issue never comes up unless you assholes are in our face trying to assert it -- like you being here spouting your bullshit kalam abortion.

Quote: If they are content to just worship in private

You assholes are NEVER content to just worship in private. It's part of your fucking religion of delusion to spread it like a virus as much as you can. Like when you come in here with your fucking bullshit kalam abortion. And you don't even stop there, you have been forcing it into our laws for quite some time.

Quote:then they only owe themselves the standard of proof that they choose to apply to their own beliefs. If they choose to believe based on blind faith, then that's their choice. But, they don't owe you any explanation or have any burden of proof towards you unless they choose to try to impose their own beliefs on you.

Quote:As for your second point, I don't know if you realize how strong a statement you've made, so I figure I'd point it out for you...

How do you know that the universe looks exactly as a material, natural universe would look?

We don't have a "gawd" coming around changing the laws of nature to suit its whims.

Quote:Really? How would a universe of divine creation look any different? You have no benchmark for comparison. Unless you have seen at least one universe that was natural and at least one universe that was of divine creation you have ZERO way to be able to make that claim. On the assumption that this is the only universe you've ever seen, I would submit that you have too small a sample size and no control group in order to make your assertion.